- (1.) This order will also dispose of SB Civil Revision Petition No. 844/92 "Rahmat Khan Vs. Kamaluddin & ors". The brief facts are as under: - The petitioner is the registered owner of the bus No. RNB 3880. An accident took place with the bus on 3.6.1990 and in that accident the husband of the respondent No.1 and the father of respondents No.2 to 4 died and Kamaluddin (respondent No.1 ,in SB Civil Revision Petition No. 844/92) received injuries. The petitioner was impleaded as a party in the claim petitions filed by the legal representatives of the deceased as also by the injured himself. The learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar (the Tribunal) before whom the claims were filed, has, vide the orders dated 21.7.1992, granted a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as interim compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the injured also by way of interim compensation under the same provision. The petitioner, who is the registered owner of the bus pleaded that he had already agreed to sell the bus and, on receiving part consideration thereof, had handed over its possession to one Jagdish (not a party in these proceedings) and, as such, he was not liable. The learned Tribunal, in the impugned orders, has prima facie held the petitioner liable for payment of interim compensation and has awarded the abovesaid sums to the legal representatives of the deceased and to the injured respectively. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing these revision petitions against the order granting interim compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased and against the order granting interim compensation to the injured.
(2.) The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had passed on the possession of the bus in question to Jagdish after receiving part payment of the amount of consideration of sale and, as such, Jagdish had become liable for making the payment and no liability could be fastened on the petitioner.
(3.) It is not disputed that after the accident the bus was seized by the police and, on an application having been moved by the petitioner, the possession of the bus was given to the petitioner by the learned court on superdari. At this stage, it has not to be gone into whether the bus was taken on superdari only on the ground that he petitioner was the registered owner although he had passed on all its rights to Jagdish who was in possession of the bus and to whom he had agreed to sell the bus and the bus was being driven by respondent No.5-Ramesh Chand as the driver of Jagdish and not as the driver of the petitioner. All these questions will be decided by the learned Tribunal after the evidence is produced by the parties. Prima facie, the petitioner being the registered owner of the bus and also having taken possession thereof from the court on superdari after the accident in my view, the learned Tribunal rightly held him liable to pay the interim compensation under section 140 of the Act and no interference is called for in either of the two revision petitions.;